User talk:Voidxor

On the Networker page you removed my edit referencing the Class 171 designation for not having any citations. Surely, however, it doesn't need a citation given the fact the Class 171 has a page and is stil in service? If you could explain, that would be greatly apprieciated! YinYangIes (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2026 (GMT)

@YinYangies: Welcome to Wikipedia! It's always great to see new editors.

On talk pages, please always sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will add your username and a timestamp.

You make a good point, but to say that Turbostar came later, we'd have to know the year that Class 171 was proposed for a long distance DMU. The article doesn't specify. — voidxor 20:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome, welcome, welcome Voidxor! I'm glad that you are joining the March 2026 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted your good-faith edit to that page. I originally removed the link on the word “Buna-N” because it led to a nonexistent section of the page “Plastic”, which doesn’t talk about Buna-N. You then called that edit “unexplained” (true, I provided no summary) and linked Buna-N to “polybutadiene”. Two problems with that:

1. Polybutadiene is Buna rubber (BR), not Buna-N (NBR, nitrile rubber).
2. The bullet point is already correctly named, and linked to, “Nitrile rubber”. Buna-N is a synonym for nitrile rubber, so linking “Buna-N” to the correct target would mean linking it to the page “Nitrile rubber” again. But there no need to link to the same target twice within a bullet point so that each synonym is linked.

As such I have again removed the link, and trust you will leave it alone per this explanation. Thanks! — tooki (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tooki: That's fine. Thanks for the explanation. As a reminder, edit summaries are important for exactly this reason. Explaining what you changed—and more importantly why you changed it—saves other editors from scratching our heads trying to figure out if you know what you're doing or if it needs to be reverted. Although it takes a few seconds to type an edit summary, they'll often end up saving time on reverts and talk-page discussion. In Preferences, there's an option to remind when trying to saving a page with an empty summary. — voidxor 14:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi voidxor, I have moved the discussion you started at Talk:Microphone § Using scripts to depipe links to User talk:Kvng § Using scripts to depipe links as the latter seemed more appropriate; please check the new location for any responses. ~Kvng (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Voidxor, I seen your comments about the |schooltype, fundingtype= parameters and I added a new proposal to remove these parameters just under it, if you would be interested to add some comments there that would be great, thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. — voidxor 15:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Post-secondary educational organizations in the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this policy? Disambigs are included as a reason we boldface too. It's to help readers know why they landed here. I can't find it in MOS:BOLD. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes: experience. I don't know why you're so opposed to something so trivial. I've been editing here for a long time, and the main defined term in the lead is boldface, as are synonyms and initialisms, whether or not there is a redirect. Redirects are typically considered necessary after the main term in the lead, most commonly redirects to sections. But I can tell you that the initialism of the main defined term is boldface in the lead.

If you insist on some kind of guideline, maybe follow the link on MOS:BOLD that goes to MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, where this is made pretty clear. — voidxor 20:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I am a 20-year editor of Wikipedia, and I'm always learning new things. I was simply wondering if I missed something and you could point me to the policy. My read of the policy was that bold alt names are only for redirects, not links from disambigs. But, yes, it's a rather trivial thing. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)